Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Daulat Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. - Respondent
Cr.MP(M) No: 420 of 2025
Decided On : 19-09-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate

Prolonged custody over 1.5 years in sexual offence case with doubtful prima facie evidence, non-supportive key witnesses, and delayed trial entitles bail under Article 21 as rule, subject to stringent conditions mitigating risks.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 376(2)(b)(f)(l) and 506 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Bail application in sexual offence and intimidation case - Petitioner in custody over one and half years - Trial underway with 8 of 28 witnesses examined - Material witnesses including complainant, victim's husband and father not supporting prosecution - Victim refused medical examination - Delay in FIR lodging - No past criminal antecedents - Prima facie accusation doubtful - Prolonged incarceration violative of personal liberty and speedy trial right - Bail is rule, jail exception - No cogent material on tampering or flight risk - Bail granted subject to stringent conditions including not visiting victim's residence till her statement recorded and monthly reporting. (Paras 7(i), 8, 11, 12, 17)

(B) Bail parameters - Consider gravity, custody period, trial progress, evidence strength, accused standing without merits adjudication - Balance personal liberty against victim and societal interests - Denial only on reasonable grounds like tampering apprehension based on convincing material - Conditions can safeguard apprehensions. (Paras 6, 6(i), 6(ii), 13, 15)

Facts of the case:
FIR registered for alleged sexual assault on married victim working in school where petitioner employed as chowkidar - Victim deaf and dumb - Incident averred on specific date - Petitioner arrested soon after, under suspension as government servant - Challan filed - Trial commenced but victim's statement deferred due to pregnancy and delivery - Key family members deposed not supporting case, alleging harassment via menial tasks instead.

Findings of Court:
Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with surety, subject to multiple conditions including adherence to prior undertaking restricting movement, no contact with victim, no evidence tampering, and liberty to state for cancellation on violation.

Issues: Whether to grant bail despite serious offence gravity given prolonged custody, doubtful prima facie case, non-supportive witnesses, pending trial, and safeguards via undertakings.

Ratio Decidendi: Accusations to be tested at trial; innocence presumed till guilt proved - Prolonged detention on mere allegation punitive, infringing Article 21 - Absent cogent tampering or flight evidence, and with trial delay not attributable to accused, bail concession warranted with protective conditions.

Result: Bail petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. bail petition amid rape fir and custody. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties contend on trial delay and tampering fears. (Para 4 , 16)
3. bail assessed prima facie without merits examination. (Para 5 , 6)
4. accusation doubtful; witnesses, family unsupportive. (Para 7)
5. prolonged detention violates article 21 liberty. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
6. no antecedents, tampering risk; undertaking suffices. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
7. bail granted with conditions ensuring compliance. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Bail petitioner, Daulat Ram, who is in custody since 29.03.2024, has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'], originating from FIR No.15 of 2024, dated 24.03.2024, under Sections 376 (2) (b) (f) (l) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmour, [HP].

FACTUAL MATRIX IN INSTANT BAIL PETITION:

2. Case set up by Learned Senior Counsel is that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated and he has no connection with the alleged offence. It is averred that an FIR No.15 of 2024, dated 24.03.2024 was registered under Section 376 (2) (b) (f) (l) and 506 of Indian Penal Code but the petitioner has no role in the aforesaid accusation. It is averred that the petitioner had moved an application for anticipatory bail [Cr.MP(M) No.599 of 2024], which was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.03.2024, [Annexure P-1]. It is further averred that the victim has refused to undergo medical examination. Delay in lodging the FIR has also been averred in the instant petition. It is averred that the bail petitioner is in custody for last more than one year and the trial is likely to take considerable time and, therefore, the prolongation of incarceration merely by presuming the guilt is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is averred that there are no past criminal antecedents of the bail petitioner. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has furnished the undertaking that he shall not tamper with the evidence and shall abide by all the conditions as may be imposed by this Court. In these circumstances, the instant application has been through his paternal uncle, praying for bail, in the instant case.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT:

3. Upon listing of the instant bail application, notice was issued to the State Authorities with directions to file Status Report and likewise notice was issued to the Respondent No.2 victim to file objections, if any. On 28.03.2025, the Status Report was filed by the State Authorities. Even objections were filed by Respondent No.2-Victim-‘V’ on 08.05.2025. Upon listing of matter on 18.07.2025, Learned Senior Counsel, filed an undertaking dated 05.07.2025, [Annexure P-2] before this Court that the bail petitioner is a Government Servant and as per orders dated 01.04.2024 he has been placed under suspension and his headquarter has been fixed, in the Office of Deputy Director [Higher Education] at Nahan, District Sirmour (HP). In this background, an undertaking has been furnished to this Court that in case the plea for bail is accepted then, the bail petitioner shall remain at the place of his headquarters at Nahan and he shall not visit Satahan i.e. the place of residence of victim which also happens to be his native place till the statement of Respondent No.2-Victim is recorded. State Authorities filed a response in the form of Fresh Status Report dated 22.08.2025, apprehending that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may violate his undertaking furnished to this Court.

4. Perusal of Status Report dated 28.03.2025 and Fresh Status Report dated 22.08.2025 indicates that the averments contained in these Status Report(s) are pari-materia.

4(i). Perusal of the Status Report(s) indicates that the mother of the Respondent No.2-Victim-‘V’ submitted a complaint to the police on 24.03.2024, stating therein that the